Error Theory

Moral science has two halves. There are the implications of thinking straight about fact and value (ideal theory) and there are the implications of not thinking straight. Ideal theory is the foundation, error theory the daily battle.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Rally this Saturday: Stop the crescent mosque!

Tom Burnett Sr. and Alec Rawls will be in Somerset PA this weekend to condemn the crescent/broken-circle memorial to Flight 93. Here is Alec's notice about the press conference that he and Mr. Burnett will host after they speak at the public meeting of the Memorial Project Saturday morning:

After answering questions for the press, Mr. Burnett and his co-panelists will host a rally to stop the re-hijacking of Flight 93. Members of our informal Western Pennsylvania Compatriots group (who spoke out at the last public meeting) will be in attendance, and some out of town folks will be coming as well.

To inform and invite the local populace, a half-page full-color ad will be running in tomorrow’s edition of the Somerset Daily American. It explains how the original Crescent of Embrace design remains completely intact in the Circle of Embrace redesign, which is explicitly described by the Park Service itself as a “broken” circle. That is exactly how architect Paul Murdoch described his original Crescent design.

All the redesign does is include an extra arc of trees that explicitly represents a broken off part of the circle. The unbroken part of the circle (the crescent), remains exactly as it was. It is still a giant Islamic shaped crescent, still pointing to Mecca , as your colleague Kirk Swauger verified a year ago:

Rawls maintains that the midpoint between the tips of the crescent points almost precisely toward “qibla,” the direction to Mecca, which Muslims are supposed to face for prayer.

His claims seem to be backed up by coordinates for the direction of qibla from Somerset that can be found on Islam.com. When superimposed over the crescent in the memorial design, the midpoint points over the Arctic Circle, through Europe toward Mecca.

Except for Kirk’s verification of the Mecca orientation of the crescent (which was not picked up by any other news organization), reporters have not been bothering to check the facts. When our claim that there are to be 44 inscribed translucent blocks emplaced along the flight path was reported a few months ago, Gordon Felt, President of Families of Flight 93 was quoted denying it, but despite this clear conflict of factual claims, no reporter bothered to simply open up the design drawings and count.

Can reporters actually be shamed into doing their jobs? Doubtful. They seem to regard actually checking the facts as giving some kind of unfair advantage to the side that is right (which they would be happy do do if the right side was THEIR side).

When the press is in this anti-fact-checking mode, their methodology is just to quote each side. We are trying to take advantage of this behavior by having some of our independent supporters use source documents to fact-check our basic claims, then attest in press releases and at the public meeting that they have personally counted the translucent memorial blocks etcetera.

Co-panelist Diane Gramley will be making such declarations for the cameras. Cao (the organizer of these blogbursts) did some checking from source documents this week and has already posted a powerful press release about her findings that Alec will present at the press conference.

Tom Burnett's attendance should bring national news coverage. If Tom and Alec can direct some of that coverage to our independent fact checking, it might break the media embargo on fact checking, and once we get the Mecca orientation of the giant crescent out as verified national news, the crescent goose will be cooked.

If you want to participate in our fact-checking drive, Alec has a set of fact checking guides, with links to source documents, at CrescentOfBetrayal.com. Just send him a link to the post or comment in which you attest to your fact-checking results, and he will compile them.

Thursday, July 24, 2008

The claim that correlations between sunspot activity and global temperature do not imply causality comes from a pair of global warming religionists, enlisted by the American Physical Society to put down skepticism in the ranks about global warming dogma. It is a great example of how intellectually dishonest the eco-religionists are.

Sunspot activity leaves an isotope signature in the geologic record. So does temperature, allowing researchers to compare contemporaneous sunspot activity and temperature, going back many thousands of years. On every time scale, the level of solar-magnetic activity (aka sunspot activity, or the solar wind) consistently "explains" statistically about 90% of temperature variation. (The geological evidence is amassed for laymen in Fred Singer’s 2007 book Unstoppable Global Warming, every 1500 years, but none of this is new to professional climatologists.)

Do our religionists think that the temperature of the earth is somehow determining the level of solar activity? Do they imagine some mysterious third influence, driving both the solar wind and global temperature? Even when there is every reason to expect the solar weather to have all kinds of affects on global temperature? We literally live inside the sun's "atmosphere," its extended corona of solar wind. How could that NOT affect global temperature?

Even if the mechanism is not fully understood (though there looks to be a pretty good chance that Svensmark has it nailed), the existence and direction of causality are highly certain. This is as close to having "proof" as empirical science gets. The strength of the for causality is not dependent on there being ANY theory of how that causality is being effected. What matters is that there is a thorougly documented physical relationship. It is just gravy that Svensmark also has a marvelous theory about how the relationship works that accounts for its observed operation with a high degree of precision. The causal relationship itself is just a fact.

In contrast to well evidenced GCR theory of global temperature change, these global warming religionists have all kinds of things in their models that are purely speculative. There is no evidence in the geological record that global temperature was EVER driven by the level of CO2. We know CO2 must have some effect, but it seems to be too small to measure. Yet the religionists are content with counterfactual models in which global temperature is primarily a function of CO2, while they omit from their models the one thing we actually know from the geologic record is driving temperature: the solar wind.

Damned eco-freak religionists, glomming onto any excuse to attack fossil fuel burning, thinking they are protecting the earth from being gobbled up by human economic activity. That is what is really driving these scientific frauds. They don't give a damn about temperature, which is why they are willing to be so nonsensical about temperature. They are just a bunch of leftist anti-capitalists.

Of course they are wrong about economics too. Economic growth (also called progress) is the best thing for the planet. We learn to do more with less, in effect expanding the planet's resources. But the left wing trash will never get it, because they don't think straight. Even in the sciences, it is not just that they SAY whatever supports their presumptions. They actually think it. They are self-lobotomized logical idiots.

Here is a direct link to the eco-freaks' dishonest defense of AGW orthodoxy. The authors are David Hafemeister & Peter Schwartz, a pair of physicists from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

9/11 date to be placed as star on crescent and star flag

Not all of us can make it to Pennsylvania next week to help Tom Burnett Sr. stop the re-hijacking of Flight 93, but if anyone needs another reason to try…

The crescent memorial to Flight 93 will have the 9/11 date inscribed on a separate section of Memorial Wall that is centered on the bisector of the giant crescent, in the exact position of the star on an Islamic crescent and star flag.

Check it out. As can be seen on our blogburst logo, there will be a copse of trees that sits roughly between the tips of the giant crescent (roughly in the position of the star on a crescent and star flag). That is the Sacred Ground Plaza, which sits just above the crash site. Inside the Sacred Ground Plaza is a two part Memorial Wall that follows the flight path down to the point of impact:

Next there is a gap marked “trail,” then the separate upper section of Memorial Wall has three more translucent blocks, inscribed with the 9/11 date. (There is one more translucent block on the flight path: the huge glass block that dedicates the entire site. It sits at the upper crescent tip, at the end of the Entry Portal Walkway. That bring the glass block count to 44, equaling the number of passengers, crew, AND terrorists.)

The path that divides the wall into two parts can be seen on the Crescent of Embrace site plan:

Purple: the path that divides the Memorial Wall into separate upper and lower sections. Aqua: the separate upper section of Memorial Wall, inscribed with the 9/11 date. Red arrow: the centerline of the giant crescent (points to Mecca).

Just by looking, you can see that the upper section of section of Memorial Wall is centered on the bisector of the giant crescent, placing it in the exact position of the star on an Islamic crescent and star flag. (Click picture for larger image.)

The date goes to the star on the Islamic flag. The date goes to the terrorists.

Just one of many Islamic and terrorist memorializing features in the planned memorial, and all of it remains completely intact in the Circle of Embrace redesign, which only disguises the giant crescent with a few irrelevant trees.

August 2nd

At about 1PM (when the Memorial Project meeting lets out) Mr. Burnett and Alec Rawls will host a press conference and a rally outside the Somerset County Courthouse (where the meeting will be held).

Saturday evening we will have dinner someplace that can be flexible about our numbers (probably a big buffet style restaurant). Sunday morning we will visit the crash site. (Alec is making arrangements with the Park Service now, in case we get a large turn out.)

The only reason to try to make it to the meeting itself (10AM-1PM) is if you want to sign up to speak during the public comment period at the end. Otherwise the meetings are pretty dreary.

The larger purpose is to make a statement to the national news outfits that Mr. Burnett's presence will likely bring. (Fox news gave Mr. Burnett some nice coverage a couple of months ago.) A substantial rally would help that cause, hard as that will be to achieve out in the hinterlands of Pennsylvania.

Somerset is a long way to go to make a statement, but the crash site is well worth visiting in its own right. If you've been thinking of making the trip, the weekend of August 2nd would be the time. It is a chance not just to pay a visit, but to in some small way honor the heroes of Flight 93 by following their footsteps and tackling our own hijacker.

Many thanks to AJ Strata for taking another look, and writing a long post on the fundamentally unchanged memorial. It looks like he might keep after this too, since he gives the memorial another mention amidst his debunking of recent claims that Obama's birth certificate scan shows signs of Photoshopping.

If you aren't familiar with The Strata-Sphere, it is second to none as a source for terror war news and analysis.

The Pennsylvania press reports our "who broke the circle?" email campaign, and covers up the Park Service's refusal to answer

Since the memorial design is still being described as a broken circle, and since the unbroken part of the circle (the crescent) remains completely unchanged, our email campaign demanded to know "WHO is being depicted as breaking the circle?"

It can only be the terrorists. The circle is a symbol of peace, and it was the terrorists who broke the peace on 9/11. So the design shows the terrorists breaking our peaceful circle and turning it into a giant Islamic shaped crescent. A clearer depiction of al Qaeda victory is hard to imagine.

The Memorial Project and the Park Service sent evasive replies to the hundred or so emails they received, never answering the question posed, but the fact that they issued a mass response made the email campaign news. How did the Pennsylvania press cover it? With a cover up.

Reporter Kecia Bal mentions our "who broke the circle?" subject line, but never reports the substance our letter: that the circle can only have been broken by the terrorists, who then succeed in turning it into a giant (Islamic shaped) crescent.

Instead, Kecia quotes an emailer admitting that "it was a cut-and-paste kind of thing," as if they might not even have understood the content, which remains a mystery to Kecia's readers. She does not even let her readers know that the official government response failed to answer the question.

Why is the local media covering this up? Because the entire Memorial Project, including both advisory boards, was appointed by the Somerset County Board of Supervisors. As a result, it is stacked with local eminences, all of whom are by now deeply implicated in the two and a half year cover up. Kecia thinks she is doing these local eminences a favor by trying to make this story go away, but she is not.

The further that architect Paul Murdoch's terrorist memorializing plot proceeds, the bigger the scandal. All of these local folks could still be heroes by stepping up and tackling the hijacker. Continuing to block for him instead is the worst thing they can do, not just for the country, but for themselves. We are trying to haul these people out of a burning building and they are tearing their fingernails out on the doorjambs. Crazy.

If you are within weekend traveling distance, please consider joining Tom Burnett Sr. in Somerset PA on August 2nd. If you get there early enough for the Memorial Project's public meeting (10AM-1PM) you can sign up to speak. We will rally in the afternoon on Saturday, and visit the crash-site Sunday.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

New Yorker nails the maximum likelihood Obama

The New Yorker says it is making fun of right wing paranoia about the Obamas, but the EVIDENCE says that they hit the maximum likelihood Obama square on the head.

Is Obama a secret Muslim?

Obama calls himself a Christian, but the Koran explicitly allows Muslims to lie about their religion so that they can go undetected in their efforts to advance Islamic conquest (verse 16.106). Thus Obama’s denials that he is a Muslim are not in themselves probative. We have to look at his behavior and associations.

Exhibit 1 is is Raila Odinga, the Obama cousin who is known for a fact to be a secret Muslim.

Odinga claims to be Obama’s cousin. Obama denies the blood relation. What is certain is that the two are political allies and confidants, with Obama campaigning for Odinga when Obama visited Kenya in 2006. The relationship became so grating to the government of Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki that they called Obama a “stooge" of Odinga.

Obama and Odinga in Kenya in 2006.

Like Obama, Odinga calls himself a Christian, but Odinga has already been outed as a secret Muslim, having signed a secret Memorandum of Understanding with Kenyan Muslim leaders in August 2007, the first point of which is a declaration of Islamic faith, by Odinga, recognizing Islam as “the only true religion.” Subsequent points promise that Odinga, if elected, will use the office of president to impose Sharia law.

That makes Odinga not just a secret Muslim, but a secret Islamofascist, plotting to turn Kenya into the next Yemen or Somalia. He also employs the terrorist techniques of the Islamofascists. When he lost the Kenyan presidential election in December 2007, he strong-armed his way into the office of Prime Minister by inciting his followers to slaughter opposition supporters. From Jack Wheeler:

When Raila Odinga lost the presidential election last week (12/27) to Mwai Kibaki, he claimed the vote was rigged, whereupon his tribal followers went on murderous rampages such as in the town of Eldoret, where on New Years Day dozens of people were burned to death in a church set on fire... Throughout Kenya, hundreds of people have been politically murdered in the last few days.

Exhibit 2: the Odinga/Ghaddafi connection

The press refuses to mention Odinga’s secret Muslim plot, or Obama’s close relationship with him, but the connections go on and on. Odinga is also tight with Moammar Ghaddafi, who gives him financial backing. This isn’t just Obama knowing somebody who knows somebody. Obama’s own ally and political confidant Odinga is in turn the ally and political confidant of a primary sponsor of Islamic state terrorism.

Ghaddafi recently gave a speech where he described Obama as a Muslim. This could just be an expression of the common Muslim assumption that Obama is lying (as the Koran allows him to do) when he calls himself a Christian. That in itself would be significant. Muslims all over the world are making it clear that they see Obama as one of them. Since Muslims usually know more about Islam than non-Muslims, their assessment that Obama is actually a secret Muslim should be given substantial weight.

The other possibility is that Ghaddafi has inside information. If Obama told anyone that he is only pretending to be Christian, it would be Odinga, who is doing that very thing himself. Odinga could hardly keep himself from passing such a juicy tidbit to his patron Ghaddafi. The certitude with which Ghaddafi declares Obama to be a Muslim makes it at least plausible that he is speaking from private knowledge.

Exhibit 3: reciting the Shahada

Obama intoned the Islamic declaration of faith when he recited the first lines of the Islamic call to prayer for NYT columnist Nicholas Kristof in 2007 (in Arabic, “with a first rate accent”). The first lines of the call to prayer are:

Allâhu akbar Allâhu akbar(God is Supreme! God is Supreme!)

ash-hadu al-lââ ilâha illa-llâh(I witness that there is no god but God)

ash-hadu anna muhammadan rasûlu-llâh(I witness that Muhammad is the messenger of God)

Those are also the exact words of the Shahada: the Islamic profession of faith, which a person needs to recite with sincerity only one time in order to be recognized within Islam as a convert or a believer, and it certainly sounds as if Obama was sincere. He was positively reverent, telling Kristof that the call to prayer is: “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

Non-believers may not think recitation of the Islamic profession of faith is a big deal, but it certainly is to Muslims, and Obama certainly knows it, having taken regular classes in Islam as a child growing up in Jakarta.

Exhibit 4: Obama lies about his Muslim heritage

Obama’s denies he was raised a Muslim. Here is the official statement from his campaign website:

Barack Obama Is Not and Has Never Been a Muslim. Obama never prayed in a mosque. He has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ.

In late 2007, Obama went further, telling NBC that he has always been a Christian:

"My father was from Kenya,” he said, “and a lot of people in his village were Muslim. He didn’t practice Islam. Truth is he wasn’t very religious. He met my mother. My mother was a Christian from Kansas, and they married and then divorced. I was raised by my mother. So, I’ve always been a Christian. The only connection I’ve had to Islam is that my grandfather on my father’s side came from that country. But I’ve never practiced Islam."

All of this is at odds with recollections from childhood acquaintances. Here is American Expat’s translation of an Indonesian interview with classmate Rony Amir, describing a young Barry Seotoro “as enjoying playing football and marbles and of being a very devout Muslim”:

"Barry was previously quite religious in Islam. His birth father, Barack Hussein Obama was a Muslim economist from Kenya. Before marrying Ann Dunham, Hussein Obama was married to a woman from Kenya who had seven children. All the relatives of Barry's father were very devout Muslims"

"We previously often asked him to the prayer room close to the house." If he was wearing a sarong he looked funny , said Rony Amir, Barry's classmate when he lived on H Ramli street in Menteng, Jakarta."

Another childhood friend, Zulfin Adi, told the LA Times that Obama sometimes went to the mosque for Friday prayers:

“We prayed but not really seriously, just following actions done by older people in the mosque. But as kids, we loved to meet our friends and went to the mosque together and played,” said Zulfin Adi, who describes himself as among Obama’s closest childhood friends.

… Sometimes, when the muezzin sounded the call to prayer, Lolo [Obama’s stepfather] and Barry would walk to the makeshift mosque together, Adi said.

“His mother often went to the church, but Barry was Muslim. He went to the mosque,” Adi said. “I remember him wearing a sarong.”

Obama’s half-sister, Maya Seotero, affirmed for The New York Times that:

My whole family was Muslim, and most of the people I knew were Muslim.

At the Catholic primary school he attended, Obama was registered as a Muslim, and studied Islam two hours a week, even studying Koran recitation in Arabic, which is the gold standard of fundamentalist Islamic training:

… according to Tine the teacher, Barry actively took part in the Islamic religious lessons during his time at the school. His teacher was named Maimunah and she lived in the Puncak area, the Cianjur Regency. "I remembered that he had studied ‘menjaji’ (recitation of the Quran)" Teni said.

That is how Obama was able to recite the call to prayer with a “first rate” Arabic accent. He was drilled on it.

A Muslim upbringing to age 10 need not be a big deal. The education of a 10 year old does not imply adult commitments, and it doesn’t say anything about what interpretation of Islam an adult Obama might subscribe to. What DOES make Obama’s Muslim upbringing a big deal is the fact that he is lying about it. He is being deceptive about his connections to Islam, just as the Koran allows a true believing Muslim to do. The straightforward explanation for these deceptions is that Obama is being true to the Koran, with emphasis on the Koran’s permission for deception in the cause of Islamic conquest.

This would explain how Obama can be so sincere in his deceptions. He is being true to what he regards as a deeper truth, which is how lie-detection experts say that it is possible to foil galvanic-skin-response lie-detector tests. (It won’t work with brain scanning lie detection, but we aren’t quite there yet.)

Exhibit 5: Obama’s Kenyan grandmother also lies about being a Christian.

Last year Obama’s grandmother told the New York Time that she was: “a strong believer of the Islamic faith.” This year she is claiming to be Christian.

Lying about being a Christian: it’s an Obama family tradition! Cousin Odinga and grandma Obama lying about being Christian ought to be front page news across the country, but our left wing media is covering it up. When Odinga recently visited the United States, Obama avoided him, and the press went along with the pretense of no connection between our current Democratic nominee for president and one of Africa's leading instigators of mass murder.

The press isn’t telling the public about Obama’s Islamic ties or about his deceptions about his Islamic ties, but the reporters themselves all know, which makes the artfulness of the New Yorker cover intriguing. The press knows what conservatives fear because they know that conservatives, who do not rely on the mainstream media for their information, have all the facts that the media is suppressing. And yes, the facts look just like that New Yorker cover. Good work Barry Blitt!

Exhibit 6: Obama claims that the 9/11 terrorists were motivated by poverty.

The New Yorker article quotes a previously unreported Obama speech from 2001 where Obama pretends that the root cause of Islamic terrorism is “poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair”:

The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.

Don’t forget that in Obama’s world, these “root causes” of terrorism are a product of White, Western and American racism. Ours is a world where “where white folks' greed runs a world in need,” as Obama’s pastor and “spiritual mentor” Jeremiah Wright put it in the sermon that Obama used for the title of his Audacity of Hope autobiography.

Many leftists said similar things after 9/11, falsely placing their own complaints in the mouths of terrorists for whom the left’s “progressive” agenda is even more slaughter-worthy than Christianity. Still, it is particularly perverse to hear this foolishness from a man who was raised Muslim, and has personal knowledge of the ideology that actually motivated the 9/11 terrorists, none of whom were poor. It isn’t poverty that is spreading the orthodox Wahhabism of the bin Ladenists, but 75 plus billion dollars of Saudi Oil money since 1970.

Is it plausible that a man who was educated in Islam as a child and who maintains Islamofascist associations as an adult would actually think that the 9/11 terrorists were motivated by poverty? If this were the explanation for Obama's speech it would prove him dumber than a mud fence and unfit for ANY role in national politics.

But no, it is NOT plausible that Obama is ignorant of Islamofascist ideology. The only plausible explanation for Obama’s post 9/11 speech is that he was intentionally covering up what he knew to be the truth about the 9/11 attacks and in a way that would prompt America blame itself and make concessions to the enemy. In other words, Obama was engaging in Taqiyya, or Islamic deception, as allowed for the advancement of Islamic conquest.

Exhibit 7: Obama has for years expressed the most extreme determination to surrender Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran.

The Obama plan offers a responsible yet effective alternative to the President’s failed policy of escalation. Realizing there can be no military solution in Iraq, it focuses instead on reaching a political solution in Iraq, protecting our interests in the region, and bringing this war to a responsible end. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date that is consistent with the expectation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

All of Obama's actual behaviors are consistent with loyalty to radical Islam. It is an unfortunate fact of our era that the same can be said of many Democratic party leaders, most of whom have worked desperately for years to lose the Iraq war (voting forty times in 2007 to withdraw from Iraq). But many of these other Democrats really are ignorant about Islam, imagining that Islam is no different than Christianity (which is seen as the real enemy, since it is the political opposition here at home). Obama on the other hand, had years of education in traditional Islam's constant calls for conquest of the infidel. He understands traditional Islam’s drive to impose Sharia law on the entire world, and he is comfortable with it.

The editors of the Washington Post take note today of Obama's latest plan for "true success" in Iraq. It is "the same pullout that Mr. Obama proposed when chaos in Iraq appeared to him inevitable." Their conclusion?

The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war's outcome -- that Iraq "distracts us from every threat we face" and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That's an irrational and ahistorical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the world's largest oil reserves. Whether or not the war was a mistake, Iraq's future is a vital U.S. security interest. If he is elected president, Mr. Obama sooner or later will have to tailor his Iraq strategy to that reality.

No, he will not "have" to do anything. He will be president. He can turn as many countries over to the Islamofascists as he wants to, just as Jimmy Carter forced Iran into the hands of the Ayatollah Khomeini thirty years ago.

The powers of Congress will not be sufficient to stop Obama from doing what he wants. The Constitution gives the president clear authority over foreign policy, and while world events are hard to nudge in a positive direction (because we are opposed at every turn by our enemies), they are easy to nudge in bad directions (where our enemies will "help"). If we elect a president of suspect loyalties, Congress and the American people will be helpless to stop him from destroying our position in the world. The ONLY legal recourse will be to impeach him for treason, which could not be accomplished until America is a pile of rubble.

When Obama says he is determined to abandon Iraq, BELIEVE HIM. He absolutely means it. When he says that he rejects the idea that America is morally superior to Iran and Syria, two of the leading Islamofascist states in the world, BELIEVE HIM. Here is the rationale Obama gave for why he would hold unconditional talks with Ahmadinijad and Assad:

If we think that meeting with the president is a privilege that has to be earned, I think that reinforces the sense that we stand above the rest of the world at this point in time.

He was talking explicitly about meeting with bin Ladenists and Khomeini-ists. He does not see America as standing above these murder-cultists, and he MEANS it.

Exhibit 8: Obama’s phony Christian church

According to Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s Trinity United Church of Christ subscribes to “Black Liberation Theology,” which maintains that: “'If God is not for us and against whites ... we had better kill him.”

This is an explicit rejection of the second commandment of Jesus: to love each other, without reference to race, religion or other group identity (the parable of the Good Samaritan, Luke 10:25-37). This is the essence of Christianity: the Levitican law of love (Lev 19:18) gets explicitly applied to the entire human family. Black Liberation Theology rejects this essence of Christianity and changes it to: “Love your BLACK neighbor as you love yourself, but hate white people.”

Disgusting. Evil. ANTI-Christian.

Traditional Islam employs the same bigoted version of the law of love. Koran, Verse 48.29:

Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those with him are firm of heart against the unbelievers, compassionate among themselves.

It is possible to interpret this and other bigoted verses so as to render them moral. In particular, they can be interpreted as conditional on circumstances of defensive war. But this is not what traditional Islam does. Traditional Islam interprets verse 48.29 as a general principle, to be applied in all times and all places.

Trinity church does the same thing. At its heart, Black Liberation Theology is Islamic, not Christian. Goodwill only extends to members of the group. It is not surprising then, that Trinity would embrace America’s leading black Islamofascist, Louis Farrakhan, and his racist Nation of Islam, or that Obama’s organization would be shot through with Nation of Islam personnel.

In effect, the entire Trinity church is lying about being Christian. Their ideology and sympathy is all the way over with the Islamofascists.

There is nothing speculative about the Michelle half of the cartoon

The drawing of Michelle Obama as Angela Davis is simply an accurate (if cartoony) dramatization of the couple’s well known anti-Americanism. Both are virulent anti-white racists, driven by insatiable grievance. As a young adult, Michelle was obsessed with race-consciousness, saw blacks and whites as having unavoidably different and irreconcilable cultures, and viewed black integrationists as ignorant compared to black separatists. She still thinks America is “just downright mean,” and she was never proud of America until Barack won the Democratic nomination (raising the prospect that the existing “white” America could be dumped in the trash and replaced with Obamamerica).

These sophomoric indulgences were never reconsidered, but were solidified by long association with radical leftists like domestic terrorist William Ayers and 15 years of listening to sermons by racist demagogue Jeremiah “God DAMN America” Wright.

At Wright’s Trinity church, the Obama’s swore to uphold a “Black Value System” that defines competition (aka economic liberty) as “racist” and which disavows “the pursuit of middle-classness.” To be black, according to the Obamas, IS to be socialist, and Obama walks the walk. In his short tenure as Senator from Illinois, Obama has amassed the furthest left voting record in the Senate. The militant racism and leftism of the Obama’s is just a fact. No speculation whatsoever.

In contrast, the depiction of Barack as a secret Islamist does involve some speculation, but the evidence shows this to be the maximum liklihood estimate for the real Barack Hussein Obama.

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

Muslims can earn goodwill by helping to stop the crescent plot

Al Qaeda's 9/11 sneak attack cast suspicion on all Muslims. After the hijackers hid amongst us, pretending to be trustworthy friends while plotting acts of war, how can we know that other Muslims are not doing the same?

American Muslims could undo much of this suspicion by helping to expose the terrorist memorial mosque that architect Paul Murdoch is trying to plant on the Flight 93 crash site.

Non-Muslim Americans can tell themselves that the Mecca orientation of the giant crescent is esoteric or unimportant (even if they go by semi-Islamic sounding names like Allahpundit), but every Muslim will instantly recognize this orientation as the central symbol of Islam.

Other Americans can also get confused about the direction to Mecca, thinking that the northeast facing crescent memorial CAN'T point to Mecca because Mecca is south of us. Not American Muslims, who all know that the shortest-distance direction to Mecca is to the northeast, since the overwhelming majority of them face this direction for prayer:

A person facing into the Crescent of Embrace (which remains completely intact in the "broken circle" redesign) will be facing almost exactly at Mecca (the Muslim "qibla," or prayer direction.)

Similarly with the Tower of Voices. Unbelievers can look up the minaret-like Tower and not recognize that the crescent projected against the sky is an Islamic crescent, but every Muslims will instantly recognize its specifically Islamic geometry (covering about 2/3rds of a circle of arc, with a circular inner arc):

Flight 93 tower, left. Uppsala mosque, right. Crescent topped minarets are a familiar sight in much of the Islamic world (including Sweden).

If American Muslims DON'T help to stop this al Qaeda sympathizing architect from building an Islamic memorial to the 9/11 terrorists, when many who are less familiar with Islamic symbolism are stepping up, what will it say about their loyalties? How can these fellow countrymen claim to not warrant the suspicion that al Qaeda has cast onto all Muslims if they will not help stop an al Qaeda attack that is more easily recognizable to them than to anyone else?

On the other hand, if American Muslims DO step up and expose this al Qaeda sympathizing plot against their new homeland, it will demonstrate that they ARE trustworthy friends.

This loyalty to America is what is what the rest of America wants to see. Is it what our Muslim countrymen want?

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

When the Crescent of Embrace memorial to Flight 93 was unveiled in September 2005, thesesixhighprofileconservativebloggers were instrumental in raising the public protest that forced the Memorial Project to agree to a redesign. Charles Johnson stayed with the story until the summer of 2006, and Ace has done twolinks since 2005, but for the most part, these conservative heroes seem to have decided that the "circle of embrace" redesign is okay.

It is NOT okay. Architect Paul Murdoch described his original Crescent of Embrace design as a broken circle. The redesign is still described as a broken circle, and the unbroken part of the circle (the crescent) remains exactly as it was in the original design.

In particular, the giant crescent still points to Mecca, and the repetition of this Mecca orientation in the crescents of trees that surround the Tower of Voices part of the memorial proves that the Mecca orientation is intentional. That makes the giant crescent a mihrab: the Mecca-direction indicator around which every mosque is built.

The planned memorial is a terrorist memorial mosque. This is an enemy plot, every bit as ambitious in its own way as the 9/11 attacks. To stop this re-hijacking of Flight 93, we need our frontline bloggers to rejoin the fray!

The only change: the design now includes a broken off part of the circle

The design drawings were recolored to make it look as if significant changes were made, the but only actual change was the inclusion of an additional arc of trees, said to represent a broken off part of the circle:

Crescent of Embrace left. Circle or Embrace right. The only actual change is the additional arc of trees on the west side of the memorial. (Click for larger image.)

Notice that this extra ark of trees sits to the rear of a person facing into the giant central crescent. That is the equivalent of laying down a Muslim prayer rug (called a small mosque) in front of some trees. The prayer rug is unchanged. You can plant as many trees around a mosque as you want to. It will still be a mosque.

"Broken circle" is Park Service's official story

In the original design, the broken off part of the circle was removed entirely. Now, as Memorial Project Superintendent Joanne Hanley reiterated last week, a broken off part of the circle is included:

The trees surrounding this "circle of embrace" are missing, or broken, in two places; first, where the flight path of the plane came overhead (which is the location of the planned memorial overlook and visitor center) and second, where the plane crashed at the Sacred Ground (depicted by a ceremonial gate and pathway into the Sacred Ground).

She is describing the two ends of the additional arc of trees. It is broken at both ends.

Both the theme and the geometry of the original Crescent of Embrace design remain as they were. The terrorists still break our circle, and they still turn it into a giant Mecca oriented crescent.

Those who raised the hue and cry about the original design ought to be equally concerned that the original design remains completely intact in the phony redesign. Come on heroes. Your help is NEEDED!

Animation superimposes the redesign, then withdraws all but the changes. (Click for larger version.)

Come to the August 2nd meeting

If you can make it to Somerset PA on Saturday August 2nd, come help Tom Burnett Sr. tackle the hijacker! (Mr. Burnett announced trip, and his willingness to go to jail if necessary, in this audio clip from the Mancow Muller radio show (25 seconds. And here is Tom talking about the heroism of his murdered son, Tom Jr. Audio 45 seconds).

About Me

Here is a short bio I sent to press people covering the Flight 93 memorial debacle. My training is as an economist. I was in the PhD program in economics at Stanford until my research led me more towards moral theory and constitutional law, at which point I dropped the program and started working on my own. I was writing a book on republicanism (the system of liberty under law) for World Ahead Publishing when I discovered that the Flight 93 memorial was going to be a terrorist memorial mosque. World Ahead agreed to first publish my book about this rehijacking of Flight 93 (Crescent of Betrayal, temporarily available for free download at CrescentOfBetrayal.com). This is not my first venture into journalism. Over the years I have been a writer, opinions editor, and advisor for Stanford’s conservative campus newspaper The Stanford Review, and am currently on the Review’s board of directors.